RlyTgs
Tactician
Posts:2
 |
| 11 Dec 2009 2:25 PM |
|
I'm not exactly knowledgable about all of the variations of Risk, but I do know there's a lot of versions with slightly different rulings when they claim to follow the classical rules of Risk.
I've downloaded a lot of computer game versions of Risk, and a lot of them seem to variate in the tactical movement phase, which is the phase where after you've done battle, you can move your troops to another territory.
My question is whether anyone knows the official ruling of where you can move troops on the tactical movement phase? Some games say you can only move them to territories adjacent to where the troops are while some say you can move your troops anywhere as long as the territory is connected to the area the troops are on.
Is there an official ruling for this? |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 12 Dec 2009 5:50 AM |
|
As far as I remember, the official rule was that you can move them one at a time. Then the rule book offered an option that you could move armies between connected territories.
Personally I think you are much better off with the connected option as opposed to the single move. It adds a huge amount of tactical options and strategical thinking that makes the classic rule almost obsolete. Remember, the more options players have, the more difficult it is to guess what they can do which in turn makes the game more enjoyable. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
RlyTgs
Tactician
Posts:2
|
| 12 Dec 2009 12:22 PM |
|
Thanks for your response. It's interesting to know that there are many varitions to the rules as well. Personally, I like the whole connected option as well, mainly because I came into the came with the rule on a video game where I learned my favorite strategies.
One of the main reasons I bring it up is because a friend and I have been playing and we have been arguing about it. I think he was just mad that I was able to keep North American in check, yet move my troops into North Africa to keep him in check while owning South America.
Oh yea... There's another that comes to mind about another ruling if anyone knows or is willing to comment. My friend and I have also been arguing about the card-turn-in rule. We have been arguing about the fact that there is a rule that you have to turn in cards when you have five. For some reason, we're stuck on the idea that there is a rule that says that you can only have a maximum of five cards. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, how do you decide which cards to turn in if you have no pairs?
In my Risk game, somehow, for some reason, enables you to get a bonus when you reach a maximum of five cards... I don't know if it just forces the game to make you draw a pair or automatically turns in random cards or what. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 13 Dec 2009 3:09 AM |
|
Yes, indeed this is a universal rule in any Risk game that you need to cash your cards when you have 5 or more cards. At no point in the game you can hold more than 5 cards. For example, if you have 4 cards and eliminate a player who has 3 cards, you will end up with 7 cards, you must immediately cash them in so you no longer have more than 5 cards in your hand.
When you have 5 cards, you are guaranteed to have a set. This is a simple mathematical probability. The chances that you have a set becomes 100% when you have 5 or more cards.
There is also a fine note. If you have 4 cards, and eliminate another player who has one card, you will end up with 5 cards. At this point you must still cash a set. This is because if you fortify and finish your turn, you will receive another card for this turn which makes the total 6. This can't happen, so you must cash in when you have 5 cards in this case.
|
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 13 Dec 2009 4:10 AM |
|
From Wikipedia:
“When finished attacking, a player has the option to move any number of armies from one of their territories into an adjacent territory that they occupy. The player must still leave at least one unit in each territory. You may also play under the chain fortifying rule, under which armies can be moved through an unlimited number of connected territories occupied by the player.”
There are also links to Risk manuals on Risk game wiki page if you want to know the official guides. |
|
|
|
|
Cambus731
Tactician
Posts:6
|
| 06 Feb 2013 3:17 PM |
|
I'm pretty sure that in the rules book,on earlier editions of the game, there was a suggested variation of the rules on fortifying, that allowed the player, at the end of his/her turn, to move as many armies about amongst connected territories as he/she wished, as long as he/she owned all the territories in between.
Indeed this was always allowed when Risk was played at my boarding school, and when I've played Risk with friends over the years in the 26 years since leaving school.
However I've been trying to find this rule variation recently somewhere and it is certainly not mentioned in the rules books of either of the editions I currently own, ie both versions of Mission Risk. Nor have I been able to find this rule variation anywhere on the internet.
I guess I'm hoping for someone to reassure me that this rule variation does exist somewhere in black and white.
ps I see that the current version in the shops has done away with missions and only has 5 players. I have never been keen on the complete world domination version of Risk, even though that was the original concept, and when this version was played at school, it just seemed to drag on to an almost inevitable conclusion, something which the Mission version rarely does.
|
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 07 Feb 2013 12:51 AM |
|
Cambus731, my version which dates back to 1990 certainly did have this variation and having tried other fortification variation I always believe the most interesting rule that leads to complex and strategic games was to fortify as much as you wanted from one location to another.
I am not sure about new versions but to be honest I don't think it matters that much. Considering the gazilions of variations that exist today, you are pretty much free to use what you want. Call it in-house rule and off you go. It would be a shame if they have taken it off the rule book though.
|
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Cambus731
Tactician
Posts:6
|
| 13 Feb 2013 6:09 PM |
|
so please indulge me, I will paint a scenario consistant with the (house)rules as we've always played it.
I own all of South America, and most of North America, I also own Yakust, Irkust and Madagascar.
At the beginning of my turn I handed in a set of Risk Cards, one of the cards is Peru. Therefore I receive 2 extra Battalions which must go on Peru, but as Peru is surrounded my territorys, these two Battalions will play no part in any attacks during my turn.
I conquerd two territories during my go so I collect a risk card.
So it is the end of my turn and I fortify, (incidently we've always played that the player takes a Card before fortyfing)as this may have an influence on the fortifying process, as the player may then seek to defend or possibly attempt to take the territory shown on the card as he will gain two extra battalions if he owns that territory at such time as he hands in the risk card, which of course must be deposited on the territory shown on the card.
As I own several adjacent territorys in a block throughout the Americas I take the opportunity to move battalians from both Peru and Brazil to Qubec and Ontario as one of the other players is stubbernly holding on to Greenland.
I cannott move battalions between my taerritories in the Americas to Madagascar or Yakust/Irkust because they are stranded from each other.
Therefore I cannot transfer any battalions to/from Madagacsar at all.
I take the opportunity as well to move all bar one battalions from Yakust to Irkust as they are adjacent but I can not transfer any reinforcements to from my pair of Asian outposts as they are isolated from my other territories.
Everthing I've described is consistant with the way we've played Risk going back to when I got my first set in 1984.
Incidently what did people think of the version of Risk that was in the shops from about 2004? with the 4 missions that you must complete to win the game. I personally liked it as was a fresh variation of the game, although I did find that under anything except very strong lighting the black/blue/green pieces were difficult to tell apart and resorted to using pieces from the earlier Mission version.
apologies for typos/spelling mistakes
|
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 14 Feb 2013 2:18 AM |
|
The only difference I like to highlight is receiving the card. In my experience it is usually at the end of the turn, after fortification. This means your fortification is more based on the information you currently have as opposed to using info that should only be available in the next round.
Mission cards are interesting but by no means compare to going for the whole world. When you win, that's much more satisfying. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Cambus731
Tactician
Posts:6
|
| 14 Feb 2013 3:17 AM |
|
We always found that it makes for more interest that a player declares that he has finished attacking, then collects his card, then if there is a territory on it that he owns, then that card may possibly earn him 2 battalions in a future turn, so sometimes that may have an influence on his fortifying, I estimate that the card may influence his fortifying about %30 of the time.
Then, he passes the dice onto the next player...
|
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 15 Feb 2013 5:45 AM |
|
| I suppose it works both ways. The cards create an element of randomness which can spice up the game as the player may suddenly get stronger in a certain area that others did not anticipate. This can easily lead to interesting game play. The downside is that it doesn't create randomness of the kind that some don't like. Some like to play Risk as close as it gets to chess so the result of their strategy directly leads to their success. In any case, if it works for you, why not... |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|